Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education

www.ejmste.com

How Pre-service Teachers’ Understand

and Perform Science Process Skills

Vivien Mweene Chabalengula, Frackson Mumba & Simeon

Mbewe
Southern Illinois University Carbondale, USA

Received 15 September 2010; accepted 15 December 2011

Published on 18 August 2012

APA style referencing for this article: Chabalengula, V.M., Mumba, F. & Mbewe, S. (2012) How
Pre-service Teachers’ Understand and Perform Science Process Skills. Eurasia Journal of
Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 8(3), 167-176.
Linking to this article: DOI: 10.12973/eurasia.2012.832a
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2012.832a

Terms and conditions for use: By downloading this article from the EURASIA Journal website you agree that
it can be used for the following purposes only: educational, instructional, scholarly research, personal use. You
also agree that it cannot be redistributed (including emailing to a list-serve or such large groups), reproduced in
any form, or published on a website for free or for a fee.

Disclaimer: Publication of any material submitted by authors to the EURASIA Journal does not necessarily
mean that the journal, publisher, editors, any of the editorial board members, or those who serve as reviewers
approve, endorse or suggest the content. Publishing decisions are based and given only on scholarly
evaluations. Apart from that, decisions and responsibility for adopting or using partly or in whole any of the
methods, ideas or the like presented in EURASIA Journal pages solely depend on the readers’ own judgment.

© 2013 by ESER, Eurasian Society of Educational Research. All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any
information storage and retrieval system, without permission from ESER.

ISSN: 1305-8223 (electronic) 1305-8215 (paper)

The article starts with the next page.

Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 2012, 8(3), 167-176

How Pre-service Teachers’

Understand and Perform Science
Process Skills
Vivien Mweene Chabalengula, Frackson Mumba and Simeon Mbewe
Southern Illinois University Carbondale, USA

Received 15 September 2010; accepted 15 December 2011

This study explored pre-service teachers’ conceptual understanding and performance on

science process skills. A sample comprised 91 elementary pre-service teachers at a
university in the Midwest of the USA. Participants were enrolled in two science education
courses; introductory science teaching methods course and advanced science methods
course. Data were collected through a questionnaire. Results showed that pre-service
teachers had limited conceptual understanding of science process skills. On the other
hand, they had higher performance on the science process skills. Whilst majority of the
participants were unable to provide correct definitions of the science process skills, they
performed well on the test that involved novel situations of the process skills. The
findings have implications for science teaching, learning and teacher education.

Keywords: conceptual understanding, performance, pre-service teacher, science process

skills

INTRODUCTION science classrooms. Anderson (2002) also states that

Science process skills are transferable intellectual
skills, appropriate to all scientific endeavors (NSTA,
2000). Science process skills are in two categories which
are basic and integrated skills. Basic process skills
include observing, inferring, measuring, communicating,
classifying, predicting, using time space relations and
using numbers. Integrated process skills include
controlling variables, defining operationally, formulating
hypotheses, formulating models, interpreting data and
experimenting,). Current USA science education
reforms (American Associaton for the Advancement of
Science [AAAS], 1993) and National Science Education
Standards (National Research Council [NRC], 1996)
emphasize the teaching of science process skills in K-12
Correspondence to: Vivien Mweene Chabalengula,
Lecturer of Science Education, Department of Curriculum
and Instruction, Southern Illinois University Carbondale,
62901, IL, USA
E-mail: mweene@siu.edu
science process skills form an important part of
scientific inquiry and consequently promote scientific
literacy among students. Therefore, science teachers
must be proficient in science process skills on a
multitude of levels, and must have the knowledge and
understanding to teach the science process skills. In
view of this, several studies have been done on inquiry
science teaching and learning among teachers
(Boardman & Zembal-Saul 2000; Dana, Boardman,
Friedrichsen, Taylor, & Zembal-Saul 2000; Zembal &
Oliver 1998), conceptions of science teaching (Gao,
2002), and teachers’ familiarity and interest in science
process skills (Mbewe, Chabalengula, & Mumba, 2010).
However, research studies in the domain of science
process skills rarely discuss elementary education pre-
service teachers’ conceptual understanding of and
performance on the science process skills. Yet,
conceptual understanding correlates highly to
performance in specific topic areas of science. As such
conceptual understanding is widely acknowledged as
one of the central goals of science education (Barbosa &
Alexander, 2004).

Copyright © 2012 by ESER, Eurasian Society of Educational Research

ISSN: 1305-8223
V. M. Chabalengula, F. Mumba & S. Mbewe
State of the literature
• Though science process skills form an integral part
of inquiry teaching (Anderson, 2002; Minstrell &
van Zee, 2000), and emphasized in science
education reforms (AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996),
some studies have demonstrated that pre-service
teachers have poor understanding of the process
skills (e.g. Emereole, 2009; Mbewe, Chabalengula
& Mumba, 2010).
• A few studies in the domain of science process
skills rarely discuss elementary education pre-
service teachers’ conceptual understanding of and
performance on the science process skills.
Contribution of this paper to the literature
• Our pre-service teachers’ limited conceptual
understanding of the science process skills is
consistent with the findings in previous studies
(e.g. Emereole, 2009; Farsakoglu, Sahin, Karsli,
Akpinar & Ultay, 2008; Mbewe, Chabalengula &
Mumba, 2010).
• However, a unique contribution to the literature is
that whilst pre-service teachers were unable to
provide correct definitions of the science process
skills, they performed well on the test that
involved novel situations of the process skills. A
possible explanation for this good performance
could be that the performance test items were
presented in a real-world type situation, which
could have assisted the pre-service teachers in
solving them because they were familiar with the
contexts.
• The poor conceptual understanding held by the
pre-service teachers in our study is of great
concern and a call to action on the part of science
teacher education and professional development
programs. As such, we recommend an explicit
intervention on science process skills in teacher
education programs for pre-service teachers to
develop conceptual understanding of the science
processes.
The premium placed on conceptual understanding is
illustrated by its prominence as an objective in the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
science assessment (O’Sullivan, Reese, & Mazzeo,
1997). Among the definitions of characteristic elements
of knowing and doing science, conceptual
understanding is included. Similarly, Settlage and
Southerland (2007) viewed the science process skills as
an integral feature of the actions of the scientific culture,
although not as all there is to science. Settlage et al
further state that teaching with an eye toward science
process skills is an appropriate entry point for beginning
168
elementary and middle school teachers. As a result, they
proposed that science process skills serve as a very
important way for beginning teachers to learn about
science teaching. Therefore, teachers should possess a
strong conceptual understanding and be able to perform
well on the science process skills if they have to
effectively teach them in their classrooms. Scharmann
(1989) points out that science process skills foster
significant increases in subject matter understanding and
science content knowledge, arguing that science content
and science process skills should be taught together as
they complement each other. Similarly, Rillero (1998)
points out that both science content and science process
skills are mutually valuable and complementary. Settlage
and Southerland (2007) also emphasize how the science
process skills provide a foundation for inquiry.
Though science process skills form an integral part
of inquiry teaching (Anderson, 2002; Glynn & Duit,
1995; Minstrell & van Zee, 2000), and emphasized in
science education reforms (AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996),
some studies have demonstrated that pre-service
teachers have poor understanding of the process skills
(e.g. Emereole, 2009; Mbewe, et al., 2010). For instance,
Emereole (2009) investigated conceptual understanding
of science process skills among high school pre-service
science teachers in Botswana. Emereole’s study found
that pre-service high school science teachers did not
have sufficient conceptual understanding of science
process skills. Similarly, many studies have examined
teachers’ understanding of inquiry and have concluded
that they lack a sufficient understanding of such a
process (Lotter, Harwood, & Bonner, 2007). Mbewe,
Chabalengula, and Mumba (2010) found that nearly all
pre-service elementary teachers were unable to provide
correct definitions and explanations of the basic and
integrated science process skills, but the majority of
them provided partially correct and incorrect answers.
Yet, science process skills are essential for teaching
science content knowledge and scientific inquiry (Cain,
2002).
Although previous research has examined teachers’
conceptual understanding of the science process skills,
few studies, if any, have examined the extent to which
elementary education pre-service teachers are able to
translate their conceptual understanding to novel and
everyday life situations involving science process skills.
Yet, it is important for the pre-service teachers to
demonstrate a sound conceptual understanding and be
able to perform well on test items involving novel
situations of the science process skills in order to
effectively create conditions for their development
among their students. Therefore, this study attempted to
examine pre-service teachers’ conceptual understanding
of and performance on science process skills.
© 2012 ESER, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 8(3), 167-176

Research Questions
To what extent do elementary education pre-service
teachers conceptually understand the science process
skills? To what extent are the elementary education pre-
service teachers’ understandings of science process skills
influenced by demographics? What is the pre-service
teachers’ performance level on novel situations
involving science process skills? To what extent is the
elementary education pre-service teachers’ performance
on science process skills influenced by demographics?
What is the relationship between pre-service teachers’
conceptual understanding of and their performance on
science process skills?
METHODOLOGY
This study was conducted in an elementary teacher
education program at a university in the Midwest of the
USA. A sample comprised 91 pre-service teachers who
were enrolled in two science education courses: an
introductory science teaching and advanced science
teaching methods courses. The introductory science
methods course is mainly focused on developing science
process skills among pre-service teachers while the
advanced science methods course is focused on science
concepts in life, physical, earth sciences, and how to
teach these concepts. None of the participants had a
school teaching experience. Table 1 shows the profiles
of the participants.
Instrument
Data was collected through two tests; Science Process
Conceptual Understanding Test (SPCUT) and Science Process
Performance Test (SPPT). The SPCUT had two sections.
The first section was intended to collect demographic
information of the participants such as gender, teaching
subject and number of science courses taken at college.
Section 2 had the conceptual understanding science
process skills test items that were adapted from the test
developed by Emereole (2009). This section required
the participants to define or explain the following basic
Table1. Participants’ Profiles
Demographics Division
Science
Teaching subject major
Non-science
Yes
Taken integrated science courses
No
1-3 courses
Number of College Science Courses taken
4-6 courses
Female
Gender
Male
© 2012 ESER, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 8(3), 167-176
Teachers’ Understanding of and Performance on Process Skills
and integrated science process skills: observe, classify
measure, infer, predict, communicate, hypothesize, experiment,
identify variables, formulate models, interpret data, and graphing.
The SPPT had 48 multiple choice test items. The test
was compiled using questions from published reliable
and valid process skill performance tests which
included: the Test of Integrated Process Skill II by
Burns, Okey, and Wise (1985), the Test of Basic Process
Skills by Padilla, Cronin, and Twiest (1985), the Virginia
Standards of Learning Assessments by Virginia
Department of Education (2007), and the science
assessment framework of the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) by the National
Assessment Governing Board [NAGB] (2005). The
wording and format of the questions were not changed
in any way from the original instruments. Each multiple
choice item was matched with a specific science process
skill, determined either by the original instrument author
or, when not available, by the researchers. The
compilation of questions was done to obtain a wide
variety of questions and skills. Of the 48 questions, 19
questions focused on the six basic process skills; observe,
classify, communicate measure, infer, and predict. The
remaining 29 questions focused on the integrated
process skills; experiment, identify variables, formulate models,
interpret data, and graphing. The researchers attempted to
obtain at least three questions to address each skill in
order to gain multiple opportunities to examine
performance on a particular skill without fatiguing the
participants. By compiling all the questions and
arranging them according to the science process skill
they addressed, the researchers then picked out several
questions that assessed the particular skill using a variety
of formats. For example, questions on classification asked
participants how they would classify a group of items, or
fit an item into a provided classification system. Some
questions provided scenarios and asked subsequent
questions attending to multiple skills, thereby increasing
the total number of items for some skills. For example,
questions 5-8 all refer to a scenario about growing
tomato plants and address the skills of hypothesizing and
identifying variables.
Science Methods Course Level
N=91
Introductory (n=60) Advanced (n=31)
18 9 27
42 22 64
38 22 60
22 9 31
34 3 37
26 28 54
50 25 75
10 6 16
169
V. M. Chabalengula, F. Mumba & S. Mbewe
Table 2. Percentages for Conceptual Understanding of Process Skills by Course Level
Incorrect (%) Partially Correct (%) Correct (%)
SPS Name SPS Type
IC AC IC AC IC AC
Classifying Basic 8.3 16.1 90.0 77.4 1.7 6.5
Observing Basic 15.0 16.1 85.0 83.9 0.0 0.0
Measuring Basic 23.3 29.0 76.7 67.7 0.0 3.2
Predicting Basic 40.0 64.5 58.3 35.5 1.7 0.0
Communication Basic 61.7 22.6 38.3 74.2 0.0 3.2
Inferring Basic 75.0 67.7 25.0 32.3 0.0 0.0
Hypothesizing Integrated 41.7 67.7 58.3 25.8 0.0 6.5
Interpreting data Integrated 55.7 51.6 43.3 35.5 0.0 12.9
Experimenting Integrated 61.7 35.5 36.7 61.3 1.7 3.2
Formulating models Integrated 88.3 93.5 11.7 6.5 0.0 0.0
Identifying variables Integrated 88.3 96.8 11.7 3.2 0.0 0.0
Graphing Integrated 95.5 100.0 3.3 0.0 1.7 0.0
IC: Introductory course
AC: Advanced Course
This shows that a large number of pre-service teachers
Data analysis did not have a complete conceptual understanding of
the science process skills. Of particular interest, the
Data analyses involved computing reliability values results show that nearly all the pre-service teachers
for conceptual understanding and performance tests. failed to provide correct definitions/explanations for
The SPCUT instrument had a very high Cronbach alpha observation, measurement, inferring, formulating
reliability value of 0.935. To ensure validity of the models and identifying variables. The analysis of the
compiled SPPT, three science education experts were open-ended responses revealed the following trends in
asked to identify each question with its associated the definitions or explanations provided by the
process skill being tested. A Cohen’s kappa score of participants: many participants used tautology in
0.764 was found, and indicates a strong inter-rater defining the terms in almost all categories. Many
reliability for the performance test. participants failed to distinguish between predicting and
Participants’ responses to the SPCUT were scored inferring. A number of them used everyday language in
and categorized as correct, partially correct, and defining communication. There was frequent use of the
incorrect. The responses were compared to the standard phrase “educated guess” on defining hypothesis, and
answers used by Emereole (2009). The correct response prediction; many defined observation in terms of senses
was assigned a value of 3, partially correct response was with the sense of sight being most prevalent; many
assigned a value of 2, and an incorrect response was defined classification on basis of similarities ignoring the
assigned a value of 1. A response was considered correct differences; and many did not mention measuring tools
if it contained all the aspects in the standard answers when defining measurement.
completely. The response was considered partially
correct if it contained some of the aspects in the Conceptual understanding by demographics
standard answer. The response was considered incorrect
if it was either completely wrong when compared to the The results show that there were no significant
standard answer or if the question was not answered or differences between pre-service teachers’ conceptual
left blank. Then, the responses were analyzed and coded understanding of science process skills and their
to identify recurring themes. Participants’ responses to demographic variables. That is, this group of pre-service
the SPPT were either scored as correct or incorrect as teachers’ conceptual understanding was similar
there was only one correct answer for each test item. regardless of whether: they were enrolled in an
Then, statistical tests were done, which included t-tests, introductory or advance science education course, their
ANOVA and person correlation coefficient. teaching subject major was science or not, they had
taken the integrated science core course or not, they had
RESULTS taken 1-3 or 4-6 university science courses, and whether
they were male or female.
Conceptual understanding of science process
skills
Overall conceptual understanding level
Table 2 below shows that very few pre-service
teachers in both groups had “correct” answers. A Table 4 shows that the overall conceptual
majority had “partially correct” and “incorrect” answers. understanding of the process skills was not good for

170 © 2012 ESER, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 8(3), 167-176

both participants in the introductory ad advanced
courses. The level of understanding for a majority of the
participants ranged between 41 and 60 percent.
Performance on science process skills
As shown in Table 5 below the results show that
most of the participants in the introductory course had a
very good percentage score on the performance test,
with 36.7% of the participants scoring between 81 – 90
percent. A similar trend was found in the advanced
science methods course. However, there was a higher
percentage of students who scored between 21 – 30
percent in the advanced science methods course
(19.4%) than in the introductory course (1.7%).
Performance on individual science process skills
In order to determine how well participants
performed on each process skill, test items for each skill
were analyzed separately. Table 6 below shows that the
participants performed better on the skills of modeling,
predicting, inferring, classification, and interpreting data. To the
contrary, they performed most poorly on experimenting,
identifying variables, graphing, communicating, hypothesizing and
observing.
Comparing performance on process skills by
demographics
The results in Table 7 show that there were no
significant differences between performance and
demographic variables. That is, pre-service teachers’
performance is similar regardless of whether: they were
enrolled in an introductory or advance science education
course, their teaching subject major was science or not,
they had taken the integrated science core course, they
had taken 1-3 or 4-6 university science courses, and
whether they were male or female.
Ratings on science process skills for conceptual
understanding and performance
Table 8 shows the ratings to highlight the process
skills pre-service teachers understood and performed
well and poorly. The pre-service teachers exhibited
better conceptual understanding of the science process
skills in this descending order: classifying, observing,
measuring, predicting, hypothesizing, interpreting data,
experimenting, communicating, inferring, identifying variables,
modeling and graphing. With respect to performance, they
performed better on the science process skills in this
descending order: modeling, predicting, inferring, classifying,
interpreting data, measuring, observing, hypothesizing,
communicating, graphing, identifying variables and experimenting.
© 2012 ESER, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 8(3), 167-176
Teachers’ Understanding of and Performance on Process Skills
Comparing conceptual understanding and
performance
The extent of the difference between pre-service
teachers’ conceptual understanding and performance on
science process skills was determined using the t-test.
The results showed that there is a statistically significant
difference between conceptual understanding and
performance, t (180) = -10.050, df = 180, p = 0.000,
with performance having a higher mean [M= 31.7, SD=
13.2) than conceptual understanding [M= 17.6, SD =
1.93].
Relationship between conceptual understanding
and performance
To determine the relationship between conceptual
understanding and performance, a Pearson correlation
coefficient was computed. The results showed a low,
positive, but non-significant correlation between
conceptual understanding and performance, r = 0.050, n
= 91, p = 0.637. A positive relationship implies that
conceptual understanding is required in order for one to
perform on science process skills tasks. However, this
relationship is not significant enough to be certain that
conceptual understanding and performance are
correlated.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to examine pre-
service teachers’ conceptual understanding and
performance on the science process skills. The results
show that pre-service teachers had a poorer conceptual
understanding of the science process skills than their
performance in the science process skills. The
definitions and explanations provided by the
participants revealed that they did not have complete
conceptual knowledge of the science processes, and had
difficulties in defining and explaining processes such as
inferring, communicating, formulating hypothesis, experimenting,
formulating models, interpreting data, predicting, identifying
variables and graphing. The poor conceptual
understanding revealed in this study is consistent with
the findings in previous studies (e.g. Emereole, 2009;
Farsakoglu, Sahin, Karsli, Akpinar &Ultay, 2008). For
example, Emereole (2009) found that pre-service high
school science teachers did not have sufficient
conceptual understanding of science process skills.
Similarly, studies on teachers’ understanding of inquiry
have reported that teachers teaching different grade
levels lack sufficient understanding of science process
skills (Lotter, Harwood, & Bonner, 2007; Luft, 2001).
171
V. M. Chabalengula, F. Mumba & S. Mbewe
Table 3. Comparison of conceptual understanding between demographics
Demographic N Mean (SD) t df p-value Sig
Introductory 60 17.5 (1.6)
Science education course level -0.525 89 0.60 NS
Advanced 31 17.7 (2.5)
Science 27 17.4 (1.90)
Teaching subject major -0.594 89 0.55 NS
Non-science 64 17.7 (1.95)
Yes 60 17.9 (1.96)
Taken integrated science core course 1.904 89 0.06 NS
No 31 17.1 (1.79)
1-3 courses 37 17.6 (1.52)
Number of university science courses taken -0.105 89 0.917 NS
4-6 courses 54 17.6 (2.18)
Female 75 17.7 (1.95)
Gender 1.360 89 0.177 NS
Male 16 17.0 (1.75)
Sig at p<.05; NS means Non Significant

Table 4. Percentages on conceptual understanding test

Conceptual Pre-service teachers %
understanding range (%) Introductory course (n=60) Advanced course (n=31)
0-10 0.0 0.0
11-20 0.0 0.0
21-30 0.0 0.0
31-40 1.7 0.0
41-50 61.7 64.5
51-60 36.7 29.0
61-70 0.0 3.2
71-80 0.0 3.2
81-90 0.0 0.0
91-100 0.0 0.0

Table 5. Percentages on performance test

Performance Pre-service teachers %
range (%) Introductory course (n=60) Advanced course (n=31)
0-10 0.0 0.0
11-20 3.3 3.2
21-30 1.7 19.4
31-40 6.7 9.7
41-50 3.3 6.5
51-60 1.7 9.7
61-70 10.0 3.2
71-80 16.7 16.1
81-90 36.7 22.6
91-100 20.0 9.7

Table 6. Performance on each process skill

Type of process Number of Correct Responses %
Process Skill
skill Test Items Introductory course (n=60) Advanced course (n=31)
Formulating Models Integrated 2 68 66
Predicting Basic 3 63 60
Inferring Basic 3 62 59
Classification Basic 3 58 59
Interpreting Data Integrated 3 58 56
Measuring Basic 4 52 49
Observation Basic 3 45 43
Hypothesizing Integrated 5 40 41
Communicating Basic 3 38 38
Graphing Integrated 4 22 18
Identifying Variables Integrated 11 13 10
Experimenting Integrated 4 10 12

172 © 2012 ESER, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 8(3), 167-176
 Teachers’ Understanding of and Performance on Process Skills
Table 7. Comparison of performance between demographics
Demographic N Mean (SD) t df p-value Sig
Introductory 60 32.3 (13.8)
Science methods course 0.652 89 0.516 NS
Advanced 31 30.4 (12.1)
Science 27 29.3 (13.5)
Teaching subject major -1.101 89 0.274 NS
Non-science 64 32.7 (13.1)
Yes 60 32.0 (13.4)
Taken integrated science core course 0.351 89 0.726 NS
No 31 31.0 (13.0)
1-3 courses 37 31.9 (13.5)
Number of college science courses taken 0.141 89 0.888 NS
4-6 courses 54 31.5 (13.2)
Female 75 31.9 (13.2)
Gender 0.371 89 0.712 NS
Male 16 30.5 (13.9)
Sig at p<.05

Table 8. Ratings on Science Process Skills for Conceptual Understanding & Performance
Rating Conceptual Understanding Performance
High Understanding Classifying Modeling
& Performance Observing Predicting
Measuring Inferring
Predicting Classifying
Hypothesizing Interpreting data
Interpreting data Measuring
Experimenting Observing
Communicating Hypothesizing
Inferring Communicating
Identifying variables Graphing
Low Understanding Modeling Identifying variables
& Performance Graphing Experimenting

In this study, the majority of the pre-service teachers
who attempted to provide traditional and correct
definitions of classification and experimenting, also
included additional incorrect statements - suggesting
that some participants just rote-learned the definitions.
In this case, it was difficult to determine for sure
whether the participants really understood the process
skills or not. Similarly, Duit (1984) argues that it is
difficult to distinguish whether partially correct
definitions and explanations of a concept provided by
participants are based on their understanding or merely
rote-learned.
With respect to performance, the results showed that
pre-service teachers performed better on science
process skills compared to their conceptual
understanding. A possible explanation for this good
performance could be based on the contexts in which
performance test items were presented (Song & Black,
1992). The performance test in this study presented
these skills in a real-world type situation, which could
have assisted the pre-service teachers in solving them
because they were familiar with the contexts. Multiple
choice questions also allow respondents a greater
chance at guessing the right answer. Ideally, we argue
that in order for one to be able to apply their knowledge
to given situations or scenarios, that individual must at
least have some conceptual understanding of a given
concept. However, our results did not support this logic
– as illustrated by non significant correlation between
pre-service teachers’ conceptual understanding of and
performance on science process skills. Therefore, these
pre-service teachers do not possess adequate conceptual
understanding of the science process skills despite
performing well on the skills test. However, the finding
offers some hope in that some pre-service teachers may
teach the science process skills because they performed
well on the test.
Particularly, the pre-service teachers performed well
on the following skills in descending order: classification,
predicting, experimenting. The skills on which they
performed most poorly were graphing, observation,
identifying variables, and measuring. With respect to graphing
skill, previous research (e.g. Roth, McGinn, & Bowen,
1998) report that pre-service teachers have graphing
difficulties and such difficulties were attributed to a lack
of appropriate training in the graphing skills. Other
researchers have also found that teachers have
difficulties with measurements, especially in science
experiments (Rollnick, Lubben, Lotz & Dlamini, 2002).
An interesting finding in this study is on the skills of
classification and experimenting. In both conceptual
understanding and performance tests, pre-service
teachers exhibited highest understanding and
performance on these two skills. One possible

© 2012 ESER, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 8(3), 167-176 173
V. M. Chabalengula, F. Mumba & S. Mbewe
postulation for this trend is that people in general use
classification to sort out things in everyday life chores –
thereby enabling these pre-service teachers to do well
on this skill. With regard to experimenting, one would
argue that pre-service teachers would often hear or talk
about experimenting simply because science is
technically an “experiment” subject. Therefore, at one
point or the other these pre-service teachers have always
heard of the word “experiment” and have been required
to conduct experiments in their teacher education
science courses. All these experiences would have made
them more adept at conceptually articulating and
performing well on classification and experimenting
process skills.
Implications and recommendations
The poor conceptual understanding held by the
elementary education pre-service teachers in this study is
of great concern and a call to action on the part of
science teacher education and professional development
programs. As such, we recommend an explicit
intervention on science process skills in teacher
education programs for pre-service teachers to develop
conceptual understanding of the science processes
outlined in the national science education reforms and
standards. It is also important to inform teacher
educators of the fact that even those pre-service
teachers who appear to perform well on a performance
test may not have adequate understanding of the science
processes. Teacher educators should identify pre-service
teachers’ prior ideas about science processes in science
methods courses.
Future research should investigate how pre-service
teachers with poor conceptual understanding of science
process skills tend to perform better on science process
skills performance tests. Studies should also investigate
how teachers’ good performance on science process
skills translates into classroom instruction.
CONCLUSIONS
The elementary education pre-service teachers had
very limited conceptual understanding of the science
process skills but performed better on science process
skills test. Their incorrect definitions of science
processes ranged from not having any idea to tautology.
Moreover, most participants interchanged definitions of
some science processes notably predicting and inferring.
As such, there was a gap between their performance on
the process skills and their ability to provide reasonable
conceptual definitions and explanations of the science
process skills. The results suggest that this group of pre-
service teachers did not have sufficient conceptual
understanding of science process skills to help their
future students to understand them in a meaningful way.
174
REFERENCES
American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS) (1989). Science for all Americans: Project 2061.
Washington, DC.
American Association for the Advancement of Science.
(1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming Science Teaching: What
research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 13(1), 1-12.
Barbosa, P. & Alexander, L. (2004). Science inquiry in the
CORI framework. In J. T. Guthrie, A. Wigfield, & K. C.
Perencevich (Eds.), Motivating Reading Comprehension:
Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction, pp.113-141. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Boardman, L. & Zembal-Saul, C. (2000). Exploring
prospective teachers’ conception of scientific inquiry.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National association
for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), New Orleans,
LA.
Burns, J. C., Okey, J. R. & Wise, K. C. (1985). Development
of an integrated process skill test: TIPS II. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 22(2),169-177.
Cain, S. (2002). Sciencing. (4th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education.
Dana, T., Boardman, L., Friedrichsen, P., Taylor, J., &
Zembal-Saul, C. (2000). A framework for preparing
primary science teachers to support children’s scientific
inquiry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association
for the Education of Teachers of Science (AETS). Akron, OH.
Duit, R. (1984). Learning the energy concept in school -
empirical results from the Philippines and West
Germany. Physics Education, 19(2), 59-66.
Emereole, H. U. (2009). Learners’ and Teachers’ Conceptual
understanding of Science Processes: The Case of
Botswana. International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 7, 1033-1056.
Farsakoglu, O.F., Sahin, C., Karsli, F., Akpinar, M. & Ultay,
N. (2008). A study on awareness levels of prospective
science teachers on science process skills in science
education. World Applied Sciences Journal, 4, 174-182.16
Gao, L. (2002). Conceptions of teaching held by school
science teachers in P.R. China: Identification and cross-
cultural comparisons. International Journal of Science
Education, 24(1), 61-79.
Glynn, S. M. & Duit, R. (1995). Learning science
meaningfully: Constructing conceptual models. In S. M.
Glynn and R. Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools:
Research reforming practice, pp. 3-33. Mahwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lotter, C., Harwood, W. S. & Bonner, J. J. (2007). The
influence of core teaching conceptions on teachers' use
of inquiry teaching practices. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 44, 1318-1347
Luft, J. A. (2001). Changing inquiry practices and beliefs: The
impact of an inquiry-based professional development
programme on beginning teachers and experienced
secondary science teachers. International Journal of Science
Education , 23(5), 517-534.
Marion, R., Hewson, P. W., Tabachnick, B. R., & Blomker, K.
(1999). Teaching for conceptual change in primary and
© 2012 ESER, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 8(3), 167-176
 Teachers’ Understanding of and Performance on Process Skills

secondary science methods courses. Science Education, 83, examining preservice primary teachers’ emerging ideas
323–346. about teaching science. Paper presented at the Annual
Mbewe, S., Chabalengula, V. M. & Mumba, F. (2010). Pre- Meeting of the National Association for Research on Science
service teachers’ familiarity, interest and conceptual Teaching (NARST), Boston, MA.
understanding of science process skills. Problems of Zembal-Saul, C. & Oliver, M. (1998, January). Meeting the
Education in the 21st Century, 22(22): 76-86. science content needs of prospective primary teachers:
Ministrell, J. & van Zee, E. H. (2000). Inquiring into Inquiry An innovative biology laboratory/recitation course.
Learning and Teaching in Science. Washington, DC: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the
American Association for the Advancement of Science Education of Teachers of Science (AETS), Minneapolis, MN.
National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB). (2005).
Science framework for the 2009 National Assessment
of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: American ”’”
Institutes for Research.
National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National Science
Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). (2002).
NSTA Position Statement: Elementary school science.
Retrieved from National Science Teachers Association
website: http://www.nsta.org/about/ positions/
elementary.aspx.
O’Sullivan, C. Y., Reese, C. M. & Mazzeo, J. (1997). NAEP
1996 science report card for the nation and the states.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics.
Padilla, M., Cronin, L., & Twiest, M. (1985). The
development and validation of the test of basic process
skills. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching,
French Lick, IN.
Padilla, M.J. (1990). The science process skills (Research matters –
to the science teacher No. 9004). Retrieved from
National Association of Research in Science Teaching
website: http://www.narst.org/ publications/
research/skill.cfm.
Rillero, P. (1998). Process skills and content knowledge
[Editorial]. Science Activities, 35(3), 3.
Rollnick, M., Lubben, F., Lotz, S. & Dlamini, B. (2002). What
do underprepared students learn about measurement
from introductory laboratory work? Research in Science
Education, 32(1), 1-18.
Roth, W. M., McGinn, M. K. & Bowen, G. M. (1998). How
prepared are pre-service teachers to teach scientific
inquiry? Levels of performance in scientific
representation practices. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 9(1), 25-48.
Scharmann, L. C., (1989). Developmental influences of
science process skill instruction. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 26(8), 715-726.
Settlage, J., & Southerland, S. A. (2007). Teaching science to every
child: Using culture as a starting point. New York: Taylor &
Francis.
Song, J. & Black, P. J. (1992). The effects of concept
requirements and task contexts on pupils' performance
in control of variables. International Journal of Science
Education, 14(1) , 83-93.
Virginia Department of Education. (Spring, 2007). Virginia
Standards of Learning Test Form S0117, Core 1.
Released Test, Grades 3 & 5, Science.
Zembal-Saul, C., Boardman, L.A., Severs, M. & Dana, T.
(1999, March). Web-based portfolios: A vehicle for

© 2012 ESER, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 8(3), 167-176 175